Title of Report: Annual Discipline Report of the State Bar of California Statutory Citation: Business and Professions Code section 6086.15 Date of Report: April 30, 2011

The State Bar of California has submitted its Annual Discipline Report to the Chief Justice of California, the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate and the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6086.15. The following summary is provided under Government Code section 9795.

The State Bar’s Annual Discipline Report describes the performance and condition of its attorney discipline system in the previous calendar year. In this report for 2010, the State Bar has significantly changed the format and organization of the tables and data in part to more fully implement recommendations of the California State Auditor (see California State Auditor Report 2009-030 (July 2009), pp. 36-40) and to provide more complete information to evaluate the effectiveness of its attorney discipline system. The changes in presentation include:

• The processing times (by months and average number of days) of complaints for completing

investigations, filing disciplinary charges, or forwarding final disciplinary recommendations to the California Supreme Court.

• The report of backlog of cases in the State Bar’s attorney discipline system to include all complaints as of December 31 that were pending beyond six months after receipt without dismissal, admonition, or the filing of disciplinary charges in the State Bar Court. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(1).) The backlog has been adjusted to add complaints previously excluded, but technically within the statutory definition, including those:

o Designated complex under Business and Professions Code section 6094.5 o Abated or held because of pending criminal, civil, other State Bar or administrative

proceedings o Referred to special outside examiners to handle o Made against different members in the same case.

The result is an increase in the complaints reported in backlog, but there is also a more complete presentation of the caseload and the status of complaints. This data will help in the evaluation of the discipline system and will better inform the State Bar on where to focus efforts to achieve the statutory goals in Business and Professions Code sections 6094.5 and 6140.2 for completing investigations, filing charges, or disposing complaints of professional misconduct.

In addition, the Annual Discipline Report continues to present summaries of (1) other programs of the State Bar directed at assuring attorney honesty and competency or preventing misconduct, (2) the condition of the Client Security Fund, and (3) the cost of the discipline system. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subds. (a)(8)—(a)(11).)

The full report is available at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/LawyerRegulation/DisciplineReport.aspx

A printed copy of the report may be obtained by calling 916-442-8018.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

180 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1639

TELEPHONE (415) 538-2000

The State Bar of California Attorney Discipline Report

For Year Ending December 31, 2010

The State Bar of California April 30, 2011

1

180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

April 30, 2011 The Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California The Governor, State of California The Speaker of the Assembly The President Pro Tem, California State Senate Assembly Judiciary Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Attached is the Annual Discipline Report of the State Bar of California in fulfillment of the requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6086.15. This year, the State Bar has made major changes in both the format and the content of the Annual Discipline Report. Our goal has been to sharpen its focus on the areas of greatest interest to the State Bar’s stakeholders and to improve the overall transparency of the attorney discipline system. We have also incorporated recommendations from the Bureau of State Audits regarding the information presented. At the same time, we have taken care to conform to the requirements of the statute which directs us to submit this report. Because of the changes, meaningful comparisons with previous years’ reports are difficult to make. To assist readers in making valid comparisons, this report includes comparable data for the years 2007-2009 along with the 2010 figures. The principal focus of this report is on the efficiency and speed with which the discipline system is able to address allegations of professional misconduct against attorneys. Handling these complaints fairly and expeditiously is a cornerstone of the State Bar’s mission. Moreover, state law establishes specific benchmarks for the speed of complaint resolution. Business and Professions Code section 6094.5 sets one benchmark for closing or completing the investigations of complaints within six months after receipt and within 12 months for cases designated as complex. Business and Professions Code section 6140.2 sets another goal of filing disciplinary charges in the State Bar Court within six months of the receipt of the complaints. The extent to which the State Bar meets or falls short of these benchmarks is one of the major purposes of this report. Complaints that do not meet these statutory goals at the end of each year are included in the “existing backlog of cases” that must be described in this and in previous years’ reports.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA Joseph Dunn

Executive Director/Secretary

Tel: (415) 538-2275

2

Another key purpose of this report is to provide a thorough, comprehensive and comprehensible statistical portrait of the condition and operations of the discipline system. To better meet this goal, we have restructured the presentation of the data in this year’s report. The volume of information provided is considerable – almost twenty tables pertaining to the complaint resolution process. But more importantly, we have attempted to organize and arrange the data in a logical, engaging and informative way. The Annual Discipline Report for 2010 is a transitional document. We expect to refine and expand this format in coming years, and we look forward to feedback on how we might improve upon this year’s effort. Most notable in the report are the figures showing a significant rise in both the caseload and backlog. The State Bar will continue to monitor closely this situation. The revised report provides better information to evaluate the discipline system and to help the State Bar focus its efforts to improve its performance. The Chief Trial Counsel and the Regulation, Admissions and Discipline Oversight Committee of the Board of Governors are committed to reducing the backlog by year’s end and to meet the statutory goals for closing complaints, completing investigations, or filing disciplinary charges. Sincerely,

Joseph L. Dunn Executive Director The State Bar of California

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the Annual Discipline Report for 2010, the State Bar has significantly changed the format of its presentation and the methodology of calculating key indicators to more fully implement recommendations of the California State Auditor (see California State Auditor Report 2009-030 (July 2009), pp. 36-40) and to provide greater transparency and better inform the Legislature, the Governor, and the Supreme Court on the effectiveness of the attorney discipline system in processing complaints from receipt to resolution. The reader should bear in mind that the figures throughout this report are based on definitions and methodologies that have been extensively revised as of this year. Therefore comparisons with past reports may not be meaningful, but adjusted and updated figures for 2007-9 are given throughout this document to permit comparison for that period. Some key numbers in this year’s report are: Statutory Benchmarks (“Backlog”) • As of December 31, 2010, the investigative backlog1, which is defined as those cases not

meeting the time goals set in Business and Professions Code section 6094.52

• The broader backlog, defined in section 6086.15 of the Business and Professions Code

, stood at 350 cases, down from 409 at the end of 2009.

3

1 This includes complaints open in the Intake Unit of the State Bar’s Office of Trial Counsel longer than six months, as well as open cases in the Investigation Unit more than six months after receipt of the originating complaint (or twelve months after receipt of the originating complaint for matters designated “complex” by the Chief Trial Counsel). These figures, like others in this report, count complaints against each individual respondent as separate cases.

, and mandated as a goal in section 6140.2, would encompass 4,193 cases as of December 31, an increase of over 60% from the numbers for the previous year under the adjusted methodology used this year. However, these figures are substantially increased by the inclusion of more than two thousand cases which are either held or in abeyance because of other pending

2 The statute states in pertinent part: “It shall be the goal and policy of the disciplinary agency to dismiss a complaint, admonish the attorney, or forward a completed investigation to the Office of Trial Counsel within six months after receipt of a written complaint. As to complaints designated as complicated matters by the Chief Trial Counsel, it shall be the goal and policy of the disciplinary agency to dismiss, terminate by admonition, or forward those complaints to the Office of Trial Counsel within 12 months.” 3 This goal and definition simply includes all complaints in which disciplinary charges have not been filed in the State Bar Court against the member or closed within six months of receipt, regardless of complexity or of a case’s status as held or abated. Business and Professions Code section 6140.2 states; “The State Bar shall set as a goal the improvement of its disciplinary system so that no more than six months will elapse from the receipt of complaints to the time of dismissal, admonishment of the attorney involved, or the filing of formal charges by the State Bar Office of Trial Counsel.” Business and Professions Code section 6086.15, subdivision (a)(1), defines the existing backlog of cases to be reported in the Annual Discipline Report as “including, but not limited to, the number of complaints as of December 31 of the preceding year that were pending beyond six months after receipt without dismissal, admonition, or the filing of a notice to show cause ….”

4

criminal, civil, State Bar, or other administrative proceedings. Excluding these cases – although they are technically part of the backlog definition – yields a figure of 1,901 complaints in backlog, up just over 5% from the previous year.

• During 2010, 712 investigations were completed more than six months after the receipt of the original complaint (or twelve months for cases designated complex), up from 546 in 2009.

• Also during 2010, 3,866 cases were filed or closed more than six months after the receipt of the original complaint, up from 1,971 in 2009.

Complaint Resolution Process Operations • The Intake Unit received 17,904 written complaints in 2010. This is roughly equal to the

2009 level, but sharply higher than the levels experienced in 2007-8 (under 13,600 complaints per year). The unit closed 13,235 cases, a 30% increase over the prior year, and forwarded 6,028 complaints to the Investigations unit.

• The Investigations Unit, in turn, closed 3,024 cases – up almost 50% from the 2009 level. It forwarded 1,362 cases to the Trial Unit, an increase of more than one third from the prior year.

• The Trial Unit closed 719 cases in 2010, up from 238 cases the year before. The unit also formally filed 636 cases with State Bar Court, a 50% increase from the previous year’s level of 423.

The increase in the figures is the result of changes that included complaints that in the past were excluded from the calculation of the backlog, but technically within the statutory definition. Also the sharp rise in the caseload appear to have been connected to the large number of complaints received by OCTC against lawyers involved in home loan modification scams in 2009 and 2010. These new numbers, however, provide a more complete description of the backlog and caseload. Moreover, this more complete information will significantly assist in the implementation of structural and organizational changes this year by the State Bar to improve the operations of its discipline system and to assure public protection.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. TABLE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED CONTENT……………………………………….6 II. COMPLAINT RESOLUTION BENCHMARKS (“BACKLOG”)……………………………9 III. COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESS & STATISTICS………………………………...11

A. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP I: OPEN CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31

Table 1: Open Cases…………………………………………………………...................19 Number of open cases originating from complaints against attorneys in the Intake Unit. Cases are counted by complaint and respondent. Table 2: Open Cases by Age: All Pre-Filing Statuses……………………....……………21 Number of cases in Intake and Investigation units, in notice drafting, or held or abated. Cases counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of case. Table 2(a): Open Cases by Age: Intake Unit……………………………………………..22 Number of cases in the Intake Unit, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of case. Table 2(b): Open Cases by Age: Investigation Unit…………………………………...…23 Number of cases in the Investigation Unit, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by complexity designation and age of case. Table 2(c): Open Cases by Age: Held and Abated……………….………………………24 Original matters in pre-filing status on hold or abated, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of matter. Table 2(d): Open Cases by Age: Notice Drafting…………………...……………………25 Original matters in Trial Unit for negotiation and notice drafting, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of matter. Table 3: Average Age of Cases,All Pre-Filing Statuses…………………….……………26 Average age, in months, of cases in pre-filing statuses as of December 31st. Ages measured from original receipt of complaint. Cases counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by status. Table 4: Backlog: Cases Not Meeting Statutory Benchmarks…………….…………...…27 Cases in pre-filing statuses with ages exceeding statutory benchmarks; cases counted by complaint and respondent. Also shows cases forwarded, closed, or filed during the year with ages exceeding statutory benchmarks.

6

B. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP II: OCTC UNIT OPERATIONS Table 5: Intake Unit Operations……………………………………………….….………29 Number of complaints pending in the Intake Unit on January 1, complaints received during the year, disposition of complaints during the year, and complaints remaining in Intake on December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent. Table 6: Investigations Unit Operations……………………………………………….....30 Number of matters pending in the Investigations Unit on January 1, matters received by Investigations during the year, disposition of matters during the year, and matters remaining in Investigations on December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 7: Trial Unit Notice Drafting Operations…………………………………..………31 Number of matters pending for notice drafting in the Trial Unit on January 1, matters received by the Trial Unit during the year, disposition of matters during the year, and notice drafting matters remaining in the Trial Unit on December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 8: Held and Abated Cases……………………………………………….…………33 Number of held and abated matters in pre-filing statuses as of January 1, additional matters held and abated during the year, held and abated matters made active during the year, held and abated matters closed during the year, and matters remaining held and abated as of December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent. C. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP III: CASES FILED OR CLOSED Table 9: Cases Filed and Cases Closed……………………………………………..……36 Number of cases either closed or formally filed with State Bar Court during the year. Breakdown by status of matter prior to closure or filing. Cases counted by complaint and respondent. Table 10: Closed Cases by Prior Status and Age……………………………...…………37 Number of cases closed during the year by the Intake Unit, the Investigations Unit (with cases designated complex shown separately), and the Trial Unit, as well as held and abated cases closed. Breakdown by age; cases counted by complaint and respondent. Table 11: Filed Cases by Age……………………………………………………………39 Number of cases formally filed by in State Bar Court by the Trial Unit during the year, including previously held and abated cases. Breakdown by age; cases counted by complaint and respondent.

D. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP IV: AVERAGE DURATION OF COMPLAINT RESOLUTION STAGES

Table 12: Cases Forwarded to the State Supreme Court………………………..……….41 Average number of days spent in each stage for cases forwarded to the State Supreme Court in each year, excluding any time spent in Alternative Discipline Program. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

7

Table 13: Cases Reaching Effectuation Stage………………………………….……….42 Average number of days spent in each stage for cases entering the Effectuation stage in each year, excluding any time spent in Alternative Discipline Program. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 14: Cases Filed in State Bar Court Hearing Division…………………….….……43 Average number of days spent in each stage for cases filed in the State Bar Court Hearing Division in each year. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

IV. REPORTABLE EVENTS…………………………………………………………….…….44 V. OTHER CASE TYPES (PRE-FILING STATUSES)…………………………….………….46 VI. COSTS OF THE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM…………………………………………….…….52 VII. CONDITION OF THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND……………………………….……..54 VIII. ASSURANCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS……………………………….……...57 IX. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….….…..61

8

II.. TTAABBLLEE OOFF SSTTAATTUUTTOORRIILLYY RREEQQUUIIRREEDD CCOONNTTEENNTT

9

I. TABLE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED CONTENT Business and Professions Code section 6986.15, subdivision (a), enumerates eleven specific requirements that must be included in the Annual Discipline Report. The following table lists the required content and where it may be found in this report.

6086.15 Required Elements Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15(a)(1)

• Existing backlog: cases pending more than six months

o Reported in Table 4, line 1 on page 26.

• Tables showing time periods beyond six months and number of cases in each category

o Reported in Table 2 for all units, and in Tables 2(a), 2(b) and 2(d) for the Intake, Investigations, and Trial units respectively. Table 2(c) reports this for held and abated cases. Pages 21 – 25.

• Discussion of the reason for the extended periods

o passim

Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(2)

• Number of inquiries and complaints and their disposition

o Reported in Table 5, on page 28 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(3)

• Number and types of self-reported reportable events

• Reported in “Reportable Events” section, page 43 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(4)

• Number and types of reportable events from other sources

o Reported in “Reportable Events” section, page 43 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(5) Speed of complaint handling and dispositions by type

• The average number of days spent by cases in each stage of the complaint resolution process is reported in Tables 12 – 14.

• The average age of all open cases as of December 31st is reported in Table 3, page 25.

10

• The age of cases at the time of (pre-filing) closure is reported in Table 10, pages 37 and 38 the age of cases at the time of filing is reported in Table 11, page 39.

• The dispositions of complaints received by each unit are shown in Tables 5 – 8., pages 28

- 34. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(6) Number and types of filed notices to show cause and formal disciplinary outcomes

• Notice filings for cases originating from complaints are shown in Table 7, pages 30 and 31. Disciplinary outcomes are reported in Table 18.

Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(7) Number and types of informal discipline outcomes

• Informal disciplinary outcomes are listed under “Complaints Closed” in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 (pages 28 - 34).

Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(8) Description of programs to assure honesty and competence

• Reported in “Assurance and Prevention Programs” section, pages 56 - 59. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(9) Description of programs to prevent acts warranting discipline

• Reported in “Assurance and Prevention Programs” section, pages 56 - 59. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(10) Description of the condition of the Client Security Fund

• Reported in “Condition of the Client Security Fund” section, pages 53 - 55. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(11) An accounting of the cost of the discipline system by function

• Reported in “Costs of the Discipline System” section, pages 51 - 52

11

IIII.. CCOOMMPPLLAAIINNTT RREESSOOLLUUTTIIOONN BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKSS ((““BBAACCKKLLOOGG””))

12

II. COMPLAINT RESOLUTION BENCHMARKS (“BACKLOG”) State law establishes benchmarks for the speed of handling of complaints against attorneys. Under Business and Professions Code §6094.5, investigations of complaints should be completed within six months, or within twelve months for cases designated as “complex” by the Chief Trial Counsel. At the same time, §6140.2 sets a goal of resolving complaints or filing formal charges within six months of receipt. At the end of each year, complaints that are opened more than six months from their receipt without disciplinary charges filed in the State Bar Court are defined as the “existing backlog of cases” for that year. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(1).) The table below shows the number of cases not meeting these benchmarks over the past four years and therefore in “backlog.”

The upper panel shows the number of cases or investigations remaining open past the 6 or 12 month deadline as of December 31st of each year, often called the “backlog.” The lower panel shows the number of cases and investigations completed during the year which failed to meet the relevant benchmarks. The State Bar is implementing structural and organizational changes this year and will focus efforts on this and other issues raised in this report to reverse these trends, substantially reduce the backlog, and to meet the statutory benchmarks by year’s end.

Pending Cases ("Backlog") Source 2007 2008 2009 2010

Cases 6+ Months Old §6140.2 1,685 1,948 2,580 4,193As Above Excluding Held and Abated Cases 1,406 1,481 1,801 1,901Investigations 6+ or 12+ Months Old §6094.5 422 388 409 350

Filed or Closed Cases Source 2007 2008 2009 2010

Cases 6+ Months Old at Closure or Filing §6140.2 1,485 1,957 1,971 3,866Investigations 6+ or 12+ Old at Completion §6094.5 666 678 546 712

Cases Not Meeting Statutory Benchmarks

13

IIIIII.. CCOOMMPPLLAAIINNTT RREESSOOLLUUTTIIOONN PPRROOCCEESSSS && SSTTAATTIISSTTIICCSS

14

III. COMPLAINT RESOLUTION

PROCESS & STATISTICS The following description of how a complaint is received and processed will give a background to understanding the following tables and numbers in this section that have been prepared in response to the statutory requirements. The State Bar’s degree of success in meeting the statutory benchmarks for the speed of complaint resolution is a key indicator of the overall performance of the complaint resolution process. A complaint passes through several distinct stages and organizational units on its journey to final disposition. This section provides a brief description of the major steps in the process, followed by detailed statistical tables reporting on the condition and operations of the system. Complaint Resolution Process 1. Intake Unit receiv

2. Investigations Unit conducts investigation. Complaints received by the Investigation Unit are investigated, and investigators prepare reports for review by attorneys within the unit. The case may be closed at this stage, or the report may be forwarded to the Trial Unit for drafting of formal charges.

es written complaint. The process begins with the receipt of a complaint form by the Intake Unit within the Office of Chief Trial Counsel. Intake staff reviews the complaint and determines whether it merits a full investigation. About two-thirds of the complaints are closed at this stage. The remainder are forwarded to OCTC’s Investigations Unit.

3. Trial Unit drafts charges and negotiates settlement. Completed investigations are forwarded to OCTC’s Trial Unit, which prepares formal charges against the respondent member. In appropriate cases, the Unit will also attempt to negotiate a stipulation to an agreed outcome with the respondent. If a stipulation as to facts and proposed discipline cannot be reached, the Unit files formal charges against the respondent in State Bar Court.

4. State Bar Court Hearing Div

5. State Bar Court’s recommendation is forwarded to the Supreme Court. Ultimate authority to impose disciplinary standards rests with the California State Supreme Court. The State Bar’s final action in a disciplinary proceeding is to forward its recommendations to the Supreme Court. Discipline is only imposed after the Supreme Court enters its final order.

ision conducts hearing. With attorneys from the Trial Unit acting as the “prosecution,” the Hearing Division of the State Bar Court carries out the formal hearing process, leading to a decision as to whether the State Bar should recommend that the State Supreme Court impose disciplinary sanctions on the respondent. The hearing stage may be followed by an appeal to the State Bar Court’s Review Division. If there is no appeal, or the appeal is unsuccessful, the case passes to the Effectuation stage which finalizes the court’s decision.

15

The foregoing is a brief summary of the process. Two of the complications which may arise include: • If a complaint is connected with a criminal, civil, or other proceeding, the case may be placed

on hold or in abeyance until that proceeding is complete. This allows the outcome of the proceeding to be included in any subsequent State Bar proceedings against the member on the abated complaint, which may expedite or moot further action.

• The State Bar Court may refer a respondent with substance abuse or mental illness to the Alternative Discipline Program (ADP) prior to entering a final recommendation on disciplinary sanctions. In such cases, the respondent may spend several years in court-monitored treatment. A respondent’s successful completion of the ADP may be considered by the court in determining its final recommendation. The case remains open while the respondent is participating in the ADP.

To inform the reader on the performance of the discipline system, the tables in this section present statistical information on numbers and age of complaints in the discipline system and at each of the stage of the process described above. Overview of Statistical Tables The tables in this section are organized into four groups, as follows: 1. Open Cases as of December 31

Tables in this group present snapshots of open cases in the complaint resolution process as of the end of each year. Table 1 shows the total numbers of open cases, of all ages and at all stages of the process. Table 2 breaks these totals down by age group: under six months, six to twelve months, one to two years, two to three years, three to five years, and more than five years. Table 3 supplements Table 2 by showing the average age, in months, of cases pending at each stage of the process. Finally, Table 4 reports the backlog, as discussed in the previous chapter.

2. OCTC Unit Operations Tables in this group report data on the volume of activity carried out by each unit of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel. For each unit, tables in this group show the number of complaints pending at the beginning of the year, the number of new matters received during the year, and the number of complaints completed by the unit – either by closure or by forwarding to the next stage. Finally, the number of complaints remaining at the end of the year is shown. Table 5 reports on the Intake Unit. Table 6 covers the Investigations Unit. The Trial Unit’s notice drafting and negotiations stage is reported in Table 7. Table 8 shows the number of cases moving into and out of held or abated status.

16

3. Cases Filed or Closed

Tables in this group report the number and ages of cases reaching completion – closure or formal filing – during each year. Table 9 shows the number of completed cases each year, broken down by unit. Table 10 shows the number of cases closed by each unit, broken down by age group (based on the age of cases on their close dates). Table 11 shows the number of cases filed, again broken down by age group (as of the dates of filing).

4. Average Duration of Complaint Resolution Stages

The tables in this group report the average time a case spends in each of the stages of the process. Because these averages are only meaningful for cases which have already reached completion, it is necessary to determine the “universe” over which the averages should be calculated. We present tables corresponding to three different plausible choices of “universe.” Table 12 shows the average number of days spent in each stage by all cases forwarded to the Supreme Court in each given year. Table 13 shows the averages for all cases reaching the effectuation stage in State Bar Court in each given year. Finally, Table 14 shows the averages for all of the cases formally filed in State Bar Court by the Trial Unit in each given year.

Scope and Terminology Because this section is focused on the complaint resolution process, the tables presented here include only cases which originated from complaints against attorneys received by the Intake Unit. Each complaint against each individual attorney is counted separately. (Note, however, that a single complaint against a single attorney might encompass several allegations.) The “age” of a case is always measured from the date that the complaint was received by the Intake unit. The age of a case is therefore cumulative, not a reflection of the amount of time it has spent in the particular unit or status it may occupy at any point in time. For information about the average duration of each stage, see the tables in group 4, below.

17

A. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP I: OPEN CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31

18

TABLE 1: OPEN CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31 Highlights: Table 1 shows all open complaints against attorneys in the discipline system on December 31. The total number of open cases at year end (of all ages and in all stages) stood at 9,214, down 6% from 2009, but still 48% more than at the end of 2008. Of these, 2,545 cases were held or abated, an increase of over one thousand from 2009 and of over two thousand over 2008. This increase is due in part to the practice of holding or abating cases related to loan modification matters until civil or criminal proceedings are complete.

Office of Chief Trial Counsel 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake 1,579 1,841 3,324 1,965

Investigation 1,712 1,448 2,772 2,851

Held or Abated 307 531 1,416 2,545

Trial Unit Drafting & Negotiation 993 1,150 1,247 859 Filed in SBC 412 564 420 573 Sub-Total 1,405 1,714 1,667 1,432

Total 5,003 5,534 9,179 8,793

Table 1 continued on next page.

Open Cases as of December 31Table 1

19

State Bar Court 2007 2008 2009 2010

Hearing Department 394 528 371 536Review Deparment 18 36 49 37Effectuation 9 55 23 86 Sub-Total 421 619 443 659

Abated 61 126 169 172

Alt. Discipline Program 581 509 459 163

Total 1,063 1,254 1,071 994

Grand Total* 5,654 6,224 9,830 9,214

* Cases in the Hearing and Review Departments are also included in the caseload of the Trial Unit. The grand total is adjusted to remove this duplication.

Number of open cases originating from complaints against attorneys filed with the Intake Unit. Cases are counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 1(Continued from previous page.)

20

TABLE 2: OPEN CASES BY AGE Highlights: Table 2 shows the number of open complaints by age. There were 7,356 open cases in pre-filing statuses at the end of 2010; of these, 43% were under six months old and two thirds were under twelve months old.

2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 1,778 2,074 4,878 3,1636 - 12 Months 681 662 1,056 1,7461 - 2 Years 705 864 827 1,9312 - 3 Years 211 312 508 3143 - 5 Years 77 97 177 1825 + Years 11 13 12 20

Total 3,463 4,022 7,458 7,356

Open Cases By AgeTable 2

Number of cases in Intake and Investigation units, in notice drafting, or held or abated. Cases counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of case.

21

TABLE 2(a): OPEN CASES BY AGE – INTAKE UNIT Highlights: Table 2(a) shows the number of open complaints by age that were in OCC”s Intake Unit at year’s end. The number of open cases in the Intake Unit fell from 3,324 at the end of 2009 to 1,884 at the end of 2010. Almost all open cases in Intake were under six months old.

Age Category 2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 1,535 1,785 3,282 1,8646 - 12 Months 30 39 29 121 - 2 Years 10 14 9 32 - 3 Years 2 3 3 23 - 5 Years 2 0 1 3

Total 1,579 1,841 3,324 1,884

Table 2(a)Open Cases By Age: Intake Unit

Number of cases in the Intake Unit, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of case.

22

TABLE 2(b): OPEN CASES BY AGE – INVESTIGATIONS UNIT Highlights: Table 2(b) shows open complaints by age in OCTC’s Investigations Unit, designated as normal or complex under Business and Professions Code section 6094.5. The Investigations Unit had 2,851 cases open at the end of 2010, up slightly (3%) from 2009. The number of cases designated as “complex” by the Chief Trial Counsel grew from 53% of the total in 2009 to over 73% of the total in 2010.

Normal Complexity 2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 849 709 1,021 6076 - 12 Months 178 115 172 811 - 2 Years 85 92 77 682 - 3 Years 8 21 23 153 - 5 Years 7 9 7 105 + Years 1 2 1 2

Sub-Total 1,128 948 1,301 783

Designated Complex 2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 187 190 929 1,0086 - 12 Months 298 217 455 9061 - 2 Years 92 75 72 1422 - 3 Years 3 15 12 93 - 5 Years 3 2 3 25 + Years 1 1 0 1

Sub-Total 584 500 1,471 2,068

Total 1,712 1,448 2,772 2,851

Table 2(b)Open Cases By Age: Investigations Unit

Number of cases in the Investigation Unit, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by complexity designation and age of case.

23

TABLE 2(c): OPEN CASES BY AGE – HELD AND ABATED Highlights: Table 2© shows the number of open complaints held or abated and their age at year’s end. The number of held and abated cases has grown rapidly since 2007. At the end of that year, the number stood at 307; four years later, the figure stood at 2,545. Almost two-thirds of these cases were over one year old at the end of 2010. The rise in this category is due in part to the practice of holding or abating cases related to loan modification matters until civil or criminal proceedings are complete.

Age Category 2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 28 64 637 2536 - 12 Months 76 154 334 6031 - 2 Years 126 200 243 1,3632 - 3 Years 56 71 138 1833 - 5 Years 19 35 56 1245 + Years 2 7 8 19

Total 307 531 1,416 2,545

Open Cases By Age: Held and AbatedTable 2(c)

Original matters in pre-filing status on hold or abated, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of matter.

24

TABLE 2(d): OPEN CASES BY AGE – NOTICE DRAFTING Highlights: Table 2(d) shows the number of open complaints by age at year’s end, where the investigations were completed and forwarded to the Trial Unit for the drafting of disciplinary charges to be filed in the State Bar Court. There were 859 cases open in the Trial Unit for notice drafting at the end of 2010. This represents a reduction of more than 30% from the number of cases open twelve months before. 69% of those cases were over twelve months old, compared with 79% the year before.

2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 28 35 30 386 - 12 Months 277 252 238 2251 - 2 Years 477 575 503 4232 - 3 Years 150 223 355 1203 - 5 Years 53 60 117 535 + Years 8 5 4 0

Total 993 1,150 1,247 859

Table 2(d)Open Cases By Age: Notice Drafting

Original matters in Trial Unit for negotiation and notice drafting, counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by age of matter.

25

TABLE 3: AVERAGE AGE OF CASES, ALL PRE-FILING STATUSES Highlights: Table 3 shows the average age in months of open complaints pending in each unit in OCTC in which disciplinary charges have not been filed (“pre-filing”). The average age of an open investigation, measured from the receipt of the original complaint, stood at 6.6 months at the end of 2010. The average age of a case in the Trial Unit for notice drafting, again measured from the receipt of the original complaint, was 17.3 months – just short of a year and a half old.

Unit / Status 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake Unit 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3Investigation Unit 6.6 7.3 5.7 6.6Held or Abated 18.4 17.4 11.8 16.2Trial Unit (Drafting) 18.2 19.3 21.8 17.3

Table 3Average Age of Cases, All Pre-Filing Statuses

Average age, in months, of cases in pre-filing statuses as of December 31st. Ages measured from original receipt of complaint. Cases counted by complaint and respondent; breakdown by status.

26

TABLE 4: CASES NOT MEETING STATUTORY BENCHMARKS Highlights: Table 4 shows the number of cases in backlog. At the end of 2010, there were 4,193 open, unfiled cases over six months old (1,901 cases if held and abated cases are excluded). 350 of the open investigations were over six months old (or twelve months for cases designated “complex”). The Bar closed or filed charges in 3,866 cases that were over six months old during 2010, up from 1,971 such cases during 2009.

Pending ("Backlog") 2007 2008 2009 2010

§ 6140.2 (Note 1) 1,685 1,948 2,580 4,193§ 6140.2 (Note 2) 1,406 1,481 1,801 1,901§ 6094.5 (Note 3) 422 388 409 350

Completed 2007 2008 2009 2010

§ 6140.2 (Note 4) 1,485 1,957 1,971 3,866§ 6094.5 (Note 5) 666 678 546 712

(1) All pending complaints older than six months.

(2) All pending complaints older than six months, omitting held and abated cases.

(3) All pending complaints in Intake older than six months, plus all pending complaints of normal complexity in Investigation older than six months, plus all pending complaints in Investigation designated as "complex" older than twelve months.

(4) All complaints filed or closed more than six months after receipt of complaint.

(5) All complaints forwarded from Investigation to Trial Unit more than six months after receipt (normal complexity) or more than twelve months from receipt (designated complex).

Table 4Cases Not Meeting Statutory Benchmarks

27

B. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP II:

OCTC UNIT OPERATIONS

28

TABLE 5: INTAKE UNIT OPERATIONS Highlights: Table 5 shows the number of complaints received, closed, or forwarded to investigations by OCTC’s Intake Unit. The Intake Unit received 17,904 written complaints during 2010. It closed 13,323 complaints and forwarded 6,028 more to the Investigations Unit.

2007 2008 2009 2010

Pending Complaints January 1 1,335 1,579 1,841 3,324

New Complaints Received 13,537 13,585 17,103 17,904

Complaints Closed Closed: No Case 6,860 7,594 7,428 8,167 Closed: Pros Discr 0 2 16 260 Closed: Rule of Limitation 183 209 223 275 Closed: Letter 735 618 631 668 Closed: CW Issue 230 417 229 171 Resolved, Referred or ADR 129 115 136 109 Fee Arb M atter 467 338 252 292 Monitored as Criminal 1,031 718 758 1,032 Resp Resigned or Disbarred 305 172 265 1,866 Matter Resolved Between Parties 148 145 108 173 Closed: Other 61 62 68 57 Duplicate or Error 136 129 129 165 Total Closed 10,285 10,519 10,243 13,235

Forwarded To Investigation 3,008 2,804 5,377 6,028

Pending Complaints December 31 1,579 1,841 3,324 1,965

Intake Unit OperationsTable 5

Number of complaints pending in the Intake Unit on January 1, complaints received during the year, disposition of complaints during the year, and complaints remaining in Intake on December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent.

29

TABLE 6: INVESTIGATIONS UNIT OPERATIONS Highlights: Table 6 shows the number of complaints received, closed, or forwarded for prosecution by OCTC’s Investigation Unit. The Investigations Unit received 6,190 new cases in 2010, including 138 which had previously been held or abated. During the year, the unit closed 3,024 cases, held or abated 1,725, and forwarded 1,362 cases to the Trial Unit for notice drafting.

2007 2008 2009 2010

Pending Complaints January 1 1,405 1,712 1,448 2,772

New Complaints Received From Intake 3,008 2,806 5,377 6,030 From Trial (Drafting) 4 3 0 3 From SBC Hearing Department 0 1 0 0 Previously Held or Abated 54 43 73 138 Previously Closed 41 43 31 19 Total Received 3,107 2,896 5,481 6,190

Complaints Closed Closed: No Case 1,040 990 1,245 1,754 Closed: Pros Discr 31 43 74 187 Closed: Letter 94 174 145 283 Closed: Rule of Limitation 6 6 5 11 Closed: CW Issue 72 109 125 149 Closed: Other 45 33 48 57 Duplicate or Error 61 76 119 168 Fee Arb M atter 65 89 112 210 Matter Resolved Between Parties 114 143 158 192 Resp Resigned or Disbarred 17 13 13 13 Total Closed 1,545 1,676 2,044 3,024

Forwarded to Trial Unit 1,017 1,140 995 1,362Held or Abated 238 344 1,118 1,725

Pending Complaints December 31 1,712 1,448 2,772 2,851

Investigations Unit OperationsTable 6

Number of matters pending in the Investigations Unit on January 1, matters received by Investigations during the year, disposition of matters during the year, and matters remaining in Investigations on December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent.

30

TABLE 7: TRIAL UNIT NOTICE DRAFTING OPERATIONS Highlights: Table 7 shows the number of complaints in the Trial Unit awaiting the drafting of disciplinary charges for filing in the State Bar Court. The Trial Unit received 1,431 new cases in 2010 – including 1,362 from the Investigations Unit. It closed 719 cases, including 415 closed for insufficient evidence, insufficient proof or lack of merit (“no case”). The unit held or abated 460 cases and filed formal charges in 636 cases.

2007 2008 2009 2010

Pending Complaints January 1 695 992 1,149 1,250

New Complaints Received From Investigations 1,017 1,140 995 1,362 Previously Held or Abated 12 17 11 56 SBC Hearing Department 2 7 5 3 SBC Effectuation 0 1 0 0 Alternative Discipline Program 4 0 3 0 Previously Closed 8 11 5 10 Total Received 1,043 1,176 1,019 1,431

Table 7 continued on next page.

Trial Unit Notice Drafting OperationsTable 7

31

2007 2008 2009 2010

Complaints Closed Closed: No Case 67 137 97 415 Closed: Pros Discr 6 25 21 43 Closed: Letter 29 73 78 209 Closed: CW Issue 1 7 2 2 Closed: Rule of Limitation 0 1 6 0 Closed: Other 4 8 25 11 Resp Resigned or Disbarred 12 0 1 3 Agreement in Lieu of Discipline 2 7 2 8 Fee Arb M atter 3 7 0 7 Matter Resolved Between Parties 2 3 4 8 Duplicate or Error 1 5 2 13 Total Closed 127 273 238 719

Notice of Charges Filed 427 518 423 636Held or Abated 187 224 256 460Returned to Investigations 4 3 0 3Other Dispositions 1 1 1 2

Pending Complaints December 31 992 1,149 1,250 861

Number of matters pending for notice drafting in the Trial Unit on January 1, matters received by the Trial Unit during the year, disposition of matters during the year, and notice drafting matters remaining in the Trial Unit on December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 7(Continued from previous page.)

32

TABLE 8: HELD AND ABATED CASES Highlights: Table 8 shows the number of complaints held or abated. There were 1,412 cases held or abated at the beginning of 2010, and an additional 2,204 were held or abated during the year. Also during 2010, 573 previously held or abated cases were formally filed in State Bar Court, 56 were sent to the Trial Unit for notice drafting, and 138 were sent to the Investigations Unit. In addition, 266 held or abated cases were closed when the respondent resigned or was disbarred in a separate matter.

2007 2008 2009 2010

Held & Abated January 1 197 306 529 1,412

New Holds & Abatements Investigations 238 344 1,118 1,725 Trial (Notice Drafting) 187 224 256 460 SBC Hearing Division 0 0 0 6 Previously Closed 4 4 2 13 Total New Holds & Abatements 429 572 1,376 2,204

Complaints Made Active Investigations 54 43 73 138 Trial (Notice Drafting) 12 17 11 56 Notice Filed 96 126 136 573 SBC Effectuation 0 1 0 2 Alternative Discipline Program 0 0 1 1 Total Re-Activations 162 187 221 770

Table 8 continued on next page.

Held and Abated CasesTable 8

33

2007 2008 2009 2010

Complaints Closed Agreement in Lieu of Discipline 20 19 16 10 Closed: Letter 1 1 1 0 Closed: No Case 5 2 14 17 Closed: Pros Discr 1 6 2 13 Closed: Other 3 2 18 0 Closed: Rule of Limitation 0 0 0 1 Discipline Imposed 0 1 3 0 Duplicate or Error 0 1 2 2 Matter Resolved Between Parties 2 0 0 0 Not Closed 0 2 0 3 Resp Resigned or Disbarred 126 128 216 266 Total Closed 158 162 272 312

Held & Abated December 31 306 529 1,412 2,534

Number of held and abated matters in pre-filing statuses as of January 1, additional matters held and abated during the year, held and abated matters made active during the year, held and abated matters closed during the year, and matters remaining held and abated as of December 31. Complaints counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 8(continued from previous page)

34

C. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP III: CASES FILED OR CLOSED

35

TABLE 9: CASES FILES AND CASES CLOSED Highlights: Table 9 shows the number of complaints closed or, if not, where disciplinary charges were filed. During 2010, the Bar closed or filed 18,499 cases. Of these, 13,235 were closed by the Intake Unit, and another 3,024 were closed by the Investigations Unit. Another 312 previously held or abated cases were closed, and the Trial Unit closed 719. The Trial Unit filed formal charges in 636 active cases, along with 573 previously held or abated cases. In all, there were formal filings in 1,209 cases, and 17,290 cases were closed.

Unit / Status 2007 2008 2009 2010

Closed by Intake 10,285 10,519 10,243 13,235

Closed by Investigation 1,545 1,676 2,044 3,024

Held / Abated Filed 96 126 136 573 Closed 158 162 272 312 Sub-Total 254 288 408 885

Trial (Drafting) Filed 427 518 423 636 Closed 127 273 238 719 Sub-Total 554 791 661 1,355

Total Closed & Filed 12,638 13,274 13,356 18,499

Memo: Closed 12,115 12,630 12,797 17,290Memo: Filed 523 644 559 1,209

Cases Filed and Cases ClosedTable 9

Number of cases either closed or formally filed with State Bar Court during the year. Breakdown by status of matter prior to closure or filing. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

36

TABLE 10: CLOSED CASES BY PRIOR STATUS AND AGE Highlights: Table 10 shows the number and age of complaints closed byeach unit of OCTC closed complaints are further categorized if designated as a normal or complex case or if held or abated before their closure. irtually all of the cases closed by the Intake Unit in 2010 were under six months old at the time of closure. The Investigation Unit closed 1,849 cases of normal complexity, 45% of which were under six months old at closure. In addition, 1,175 cases designated as “complex” were closed by the Investigations Unit. 72% of these were under twelve months old at closure, and 35% were under six months old.

Unit / Status 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake Unit 0 - 6 Months 10,250 10,453 10,162 13,132 6 - 12 Months 26 58 59 84 1 - 2 Years 8 5 21 17 2 - 3 Years 1 2 0 2 3 - 5 Years 0 1 1 0 5 + Years 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 10,285 10,519 10,243 13,235

Investigation Unit (Normal) 0 - 6 Months 740 717 869 829 6 - 12 Months 380 465 504 757 1 - 2 Years 104 111 110 224 2 - 3 Years 21 23 26 23 3 - 5 Years 6 7 8 16 5 + Years 0 0 7 0 Sub-Total 1,251 1,323 1,524 1,849

Investigation Unit (Complex) 0 - 6 Months 76 104 264 409 6 - 12 Months 121 120 134 434 1 - 2 Years 87 118 101 310 2 - 3 Years 9 6 14 12 3 - 5 Years 1 4 6 7 5 + Years 0 1 1 3 Sub-Total 294 353 520 1,175

Table 10 continued on next page.

Closed Cases By Prior Status and AgeTable 10

37

TABLE 10 (continued) Of the 312 held or abated cases closed in 2010, fewer than 10% were under six months old, and 42% were less than twelve months old. Finally, the Trial Unit closed 719 cases in 2010, of which fewer than 20% were under twelve months old.

Unit / Status 2007 2008 2009 2010

Held and Abated 0 - 6 Months 25 7 16 25 6 - 12 Months 55 22 45 106 1 - 2 Years 53 62 107 108 2 - 3 Years 14 63 74 44 3 - 5 Years 11 8 29 27 5 + Years 0 0 1 2 Sub-Total 158 162 272 312

Trial Unit 0 - 6 Months 6 8 10 27 6 - 12 Months 37 52 37 98 1 - 2 Years 57 120 63 224 2 - 3 Years 25 71 66 202 3 - 5 Years 1 20 60 167 5 + Years 1 2 2 1 Sub-Total 127 273 238 719

Total Closed 12,115 12,630 12,797 17,290

Number of cases closed during the year by the Intake Unit, the Investigations Unit (with cases designated complex shown separately), and the Trial Unit, as well as held and abated cases closed. Breakdown by age; cases counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 10(Continued from previous page.)

38

TABLE 11: FILED CASES BY AGE Highlights: Of the 636 active cases formally filed by the Trial Unit during 2010, 37% were under twelve months old, and 7% met the six-month filing benchmark. At the same time, 573 previously held or abated cases were formally filed in 2010, the majority of which under twelve months old and almost thirty percent of which were under six months old on the date of filing.

Unit / Status 2007 2008 2009 2010

Held / Abated 0 - 6 Months 7 7 11 165 6 - 12 Months 22 18 27 128 1 - 2 Years 46 49 48 129 2 - 3 Years 15 40 32 88 3 - 5 Years 5 11 18 59 5 + Years 1 1 0 4 Sub-Total 96 126 136 573

Trial Unit (Drafting) 0 - 6 Months 49 21 53 46 6 - 12 Months 89 100 99 188 1 - 2 Years 191 215 158 216 2 - 3 Years 72 129 85 115 3 - 5 Years 22 46 24 70 5 + Years 4 7 4 1 Sub-Total 427 518 423 636

Total Filed 523 644 559 1,209

Filed Cases By AgeTable 11

Number of cases formally filed by in State Bar Court by the Trial Unit during the year, including previously held and abated cases. Breakdown by age; cases counted by complaint and respondent.

39

D. STATISTICAL TABLES GROUP IV: AVERAGE DURATION OF COMPLAINT RESOLUTION STAGES

40

TABLE 12: DURATION (DAYS) OF CASES FORWARDED TO SUPREME COURT Highlights: Table 12 shows the average duration in days in each unit in OCTC and in State Bar Court of those complaints resulting in a recommendation of discipline forwarded to the Supreme Court. Cases forwarded to the Supreme Court in 2010 had, on average, spent 29 days in Intake, another 225 days in Investigations, 29 days held or abated, and 222 days in the Trial Unit for notice drafting. The hearing, appeal and effectuation stages accounted for an additional 219 days. Overall, a case forwarded to the Supreme Court in 2010 took 723 days to pass through all stages (excluding any time spent in the Alternative Discipline Program).

Stage 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake 37 38 28 29Investigation 265 237 258 225Held / Abated 5 47 8 29Trial Unit (drafting) 197 235 316 222 Total Pre-Filing 504 557 610 504

State Bar Court (all stages) 303 271 347 219

Total Days 807 828 958 723

Table 12

Average number of days spent in each stage for cases forwarded to the State Supreme Court in each year, excluding any time spent in Alternative Discipline Program. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

Duration (Days) of Cases Forwarded To Supreme Court

41

TABLE 13: DURATION OF CASES REACHING EFFECTUATION STAGE Highlights: Table 13 shows the average duration in days at each stage of the disciplinary process before it reaches the effectuation stage in the State Bar Court. Cases reaching the effectuation stage in 2010 had spent an average of 26 days in Intake, another 210 days in Investigations, 20 days held or abated, and 215 days in notice drafting. The hearing stage in State Bar Court added another 173 days.

Stage 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake 36 36 31 26Investigation 247 249 244 210OCTC Held 8 42 5 20OCTC Drafting 196 251 299 215 Days Pre-Filing 488 577 579 470

State Bar Court (all stages) 227 219 259 172

Total Days 715 796 838 643

Average number of days spent in each stage for cases entering the Effectuation stage in each year, excluding any time spent in Alternative Discipline Program. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

Table 13Duration (Days) of Cases Reaching Effectuation Stage

42

TABLE 14: DURATION OF CASES FILED IN STATE BAR COURT Highlights: Table 14 shows the average duration by days of complaints in each unit of OCTC before disciplinary charges are filed in the State Bar Court. Cases formally filed in 2010 spent an average of 575 days in all pre-filing statuses. This included an average of 33 days in Intake, 243 days in Investigations, 12 days on hold or abated, and 287 days in the Trial Unit for notice drafting.

Stage 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake 42 27 28 33Investigation 250 270 234 243OCTC Held 7 11 13 12OCTC Drafting 231 339 260 287

Combined Days 529 646 535 575

Average number of days spent in each stage for cases filed in the State Bar Court Hearing Division in each year. Cases counted by complaint and respondent.

Duration (Days) of Cases Filed in State Bar CourtTable 14

43

IIVV.. RREEPPOORRTTAABBLLEE EEVVEENNTTSS

44

IV. REPORTABLE EVENTS By statute, banks, courts, and insurers are required to report specified information about attorneys to the State Bar. The general areas which require reporting include: orders, certain sanctions, or judgments reflecting on the attorney’s conduct in a case (reportable by courts); claims or lawsuits against an attorney insured by the insurer (reportable by insurers); and insufficient fund activity in a client trust account (reportable by financial institutions). In addition, attorneys are required to self-report specified types of conduct to the State Bar, such as three or more lawsuits against the attorney in a 12-month period for professional negligence or wrongful conduct; entry of judgment against the attorney for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of duty or gross negligence, disciplinary action by another agency, reversal of a judgment based on attorney misconduct, and any conviction of a crime.

2007 2008 2009 2010

Attorney Self Reports 94 149 118 165

Other Reporting Sources Banks 2,617 1,979 3,031 2,929 Insurers 105 103 139 140 Courts 113 98 103 126 Other 0 14 16 16 Sub-Total 2,835 2,194 3,289 3,211

Total Received 2,929 2,343 3,407 3,376

Forwarded to Investigation Unit 558 475 602 1,093

Table 15Reportable Events

45

VV.. OOTTHHEERR CCAASSEE TTYYPPEESS ((PPRREE--FFIILLIINNGG SSTTAATTUUSSEESS))

46

V. OTHER CASE TYPES (PRE-FILING STATUSES)

While the complaint resolution process is the largest segment of the discipline system, original complaints against attorneys are not the only matters handled by the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and the State Bar Court. Other matters include:

• Unauthorized practice of law matters by non-lawyers, which may be referred to local law enforcement for criminal investigations or processed by OCTC for special proceedings in the superior court.

• Matters initated because of reportable events. • OCTC must also monitor conviction matters involving members pending criminal

appeals before disciplinary prodeedings may be initiated. • Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against members who have violated conditions

imposed in reprovals (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1-110). • Proceedings may be initiated against a member who have been disciplined in other

jurisdictions in which they are also licensed to practice law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6049.1).

• Further proceedings may be initiated against disciplined members who failed to comply with requirements under Cal. Rules of Court rule 9.20.

• Special proceedings may be intiated to place members in involuntary inactive status—essentially an interim suspension—while formal disciplinary proceedings are pending.

• Proceedings involving suspended members to determine if they have met rehabilitation standards in Standard 1.4(c)(ii) of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure.

• Probation revocation proceedings against disciplined lawyers who violate conditions of probation.

• Proceedings involving members who resign with disciplinary charges pending. • Special proceedings in the superior court to assume jurisdiction over the law practice of

members under Business and Professions Code sections 6180 and 6190. Other matters include:

• Unauthorized practice of law matters by non-lawyers, which may be referred to local law enforcement for criminal investigations or processed by OCTC for special proceedings in the superior court.

• Matters initated because of reportable events. • OCTC must also monitor conviction matters involving members pending criminal

appeals before disciplinary prodeedings may be initiated. • Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against members who have violated conditions

imposed in reprovals (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1-110).

47

• Proceedings may be initiated against a member who have been disciplined in other jurisdictions in which they are also licensed to practice law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6049.1).

• Further proceedings may be initiated against disciplined members who failed to comply with requirements under Cal. Rules of Court rule 9.20.

• Special proceedings may be intiated to place members in involuntary inactive status—essentially an interim suspension—while formal disciplinary proceedings are pending.

• Proceedings involving suspended members to determine if they have met rehabilitation standards in Standard 1.4(c)(ii) of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure.

• Probation revocation proceedings against disciplined lawyers who violate conditions of probation.

• Proceedings involving members who resign with disciplinary charges pending. • Special proceedings in the superior court to assume jurisdiction over the law practice of

members under Business and Professions Code sections 6180 and 6190. This section presents summary data on the other matters.

Unit & Case Type 2007 2008 2009 2010

Intake Unit Unauthorized Practice of Law 53 70 102 64

Investigations Unit Unauthorized Practice of Law 172 199 209 240 Non-Complaint Original Matters 142 116 109 185 Contempt 43 42 46 44 Sub-Total 357 357 364 469

Trial Unit Non-Complaint Original Matters 131 139 133 71 Conviction Monitoring or Referral 1 2 1 1 Rule 1-110 Violation 11 12 16 13 Other Jurisdiction 6049.1 9 16 20 27 Rule 9.20 Violation 12 15 19 11 Involuntary Inactive 6007(b)(3) 1 2 0 0 Standard 1.4(c)(ii) Mini-Reinstatement 0 1 0 0 Sub-Total 165 187 189 123

Table 16 continued on next page.

Table 16Unresolved Non-Complaint Cases as of December 31

48

Unit & Case Type 2007 2008 2009 2010

Held or Abated Non-Complaint Original Matters 18 49 80 113 Conviction Monitoring or Referral 0 0 0 2 Rule 1-110 Violation 2 4 3 3 Other Jurisdiction 6049.1 1 2 2 8 Rule 9.20 Violation 4 9 9 19 Probation Revocation Motion 1 1 0 0 Resignation with Charges Pending 0 0 0 1 Involuntary Inactive 6007(c) 0 0 4 4 Involuntary Inactive 6007(b)(3) 0 0 3 5 Trust Over Law Practice (6180, 6190) 37 49 51 47 Sub-Total 63 114 152 202

Total 638 728 807 858

Table 16(Continued from previous page.)

49

Age of Cases 2007 2008 2009 2010

0 - 6 Months 282 286 341 3466 - 12 Months 157 141 148 1571 - 2 Years 150 203 160 1892 - 3 Years 27 69 98 733 - 5 Years 11 17 45 765 + Years 11 12 15 17

Total 638 728 807 858

"Backlog" Cases 2007 2008 2009 2010

Cases Exceeding Six Months 356 442 466 512Excluding Held and Abated 324 389 415 443Investigations Exceeding Six Months 170 211 210 269

Table 17Age of Unresolved Non-Complaint Cases

50

Outcome 2007 2008 2009 2010

Disbarment 55 57 71 128Summary Disbarment 11 6 10 10Suspension 170 245 255 444Reprovals 95 67 106 104Dismissal 34 37 56 64Termination 64 46 57 17Revoke Probation 4 7 17 7Probation 0 0 0 0Extend probation 2 0 0 1License to Practice Cancelled 0 1 0 0Admonition 0 1 2 5Deny Petition/Application 0 2 1 0Withdrawn 0 0 1 0Pre-filing 0 0 0 9

Total 435 469 576 789

Source: State Bar Court. SBC counts matters by cases filed, frequentlyconsolidating many complaints against a respondent into a single case. Thesefigures are not directly comparable with the complaint-level data shown elsewherein this report.

Table 18Formal Disciplinary Outcomes

51

VVII.. CCOOSSTTSS OOFF TTHHEE DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNEE SSYYSSTTEEMM

52

VI. COSTS OF THE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM

Tha Annual Discipline Report must include an accounting of the cost of the discipline system. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(11).)

Function Amount Percentage

General Fund Office of Chief Trial Counsel 36,257 63% State Bar Court 9,991 17% Probation 926 2% Mandatory Fee Arbitration 766 1% Professional Competence 2,302 4% Sub-Total 50,242 87%

Client Security Fund 7,437 13%

Total 57,679 100%

Table 19Costs of the Discipline System by Function

53

VVIIII.. CCOONNDDIITTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE CCLLIIEENNTT SSEECCUURRIITTYY FFUUNNDD

54

VII. CONDITION OF THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND

The Annual Discipline Report must include a description of the condition of the Client Security Fund, including an accounting of payouts. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(10).) Established in 1972, this State Bar sponsored Fund is designed to help protect consumers of legal services by relieving or mitigating pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of California lawyers. This program works closely with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel in protecting California’s legal consumers. The Fund may reimburse a maximum of $100,000 for losses occurring on or after January 1, 2009. Previous to this date, the maximum reimbursement was capped at $50,000. Beginning in August of 2009, the filing rate for new applications began to increase significantly due in part to loan modification fraud losses. In 2009, 3,028 new claims were received as compared to 825 new claims in 2008. During 2010, new claims filed reached 3,875. As of the end of 2010, 760 claims were processed to closure with 267 claims paid in the total amount of $3.3 million. Table 20, below, reflects the activity of the Fund for 2007 through 2010.

55

Dollars 2007 2008 2009 2010

Claims outstanding at the beginning of the year 9,648,573 11,811,143 11,871,541 22,124,850Prior year accrual adjustment 0 107,497 15,532 100,260New applications filed 12,927,446 11,290,084 19,469,661 23,231,936Less: Claims paid 4,352,110 4,638,272 3,461,950 3,331,124 Claims denied 2,066,308 2,196,878 1,930,226 2,869,032 Claims withdrawn 4,346,458 4,502,033 3,839,708 4,743,243Claims outstanding at the end of the year 11,811,143 11,871,541 22,124,850 34,513,647

Claims payout ratio 42% 41% 39% 34%Estimated claims liability at year end 5,013,830 4,829,343 8,712,766 11,620,745

Cash and investments available to pay claims 6,464,048 10,579,890 11,474,261 15,522,370

Number of Claims 2007 2008 2009 2010

Claims outstanding at the beginning of the year 797 1,161 1,084 3,371 New applications filed 1,013 825 3,028 3,875 Less: Claims paid 607 479 378 267 Claims denied 42 57 52 138 Claims withdrawn 374 366 311 355 Claims outstanding at the end of the year 1,161 1,084 3,371 6,486

Table 20Client Security Fund Activity

56

VVIIIIII.. AASSSSUURRAANNCCEE AANNDD PPRREEVVEENNTTIIOONN PPRROOGGRRAAMMSS

57

VIII. ASSURANCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS The Annual Discipline Report is requied to include a descrption of the programs of the State Bar directed at assuring honesty and competence by attorney or at preventing acts warranting discipline. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.15, subd. (a)(8) & (a)(9).) The following is a brief description of some of those programs. Professional Competence The Office of Professional Competence offers a wide range of programs to help lawyers meet their ethical duties and operates the Ethics Hotline, which responded to 22,900 calls in 2010. The office helped seek the public’s input on 67 new and amended Rules of Professional Conduct that were adopted by the board of governors and will be submitted to the California Supreme Court for approval. An ethics alert about loan modification issues, prepared by the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct in 2009, received 48,500 online hits in 2010. Professional Competence The Office of Professional Competence operates the Ethics Hotline, which responded to 22,900 calls in 2010 with references on the Rules of Professional Conduct, the State Bar Act, or case law to members with questions about their ethical duties. The office processed public comment received on the 67 proposed new or amended Rules of Professional Conduct that were adopted by the board of governors and will be submitted to the California Supreme Court for approval later this year. An ethics alert about lawyers involved in home loan modification, prepared by the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct in 2009, received 48,500 online hits on the State Bar’s Web site in 2010. Other Regulatory or Legal Education Programs Oter programs involving regulating the practice of law in California, legal education and competence include: • Multijurisdictional Practice Program (MJP): Regulates out-of-state lawyers who live in

California who register with the State Bar and perform limited legal services as in-house counsel for some corporations or to provide practice with legal aid organizations to the poor. In 2010, 14 legal services lawyers and 829 in-house counsel were registered in the MJP program. (California Rules of Court 9.45-9.48 and State Bar rules)

• Pro Hac Vice Program: Assists the California courts in the application of out-of-state

attorneys to appear in a case in California state courts. In 2010, 2,847 attorneys filed pro hac vice applications with the State Bar. (Rule of Court 9.40)

58

• Military Counsel Program: Regulates out-of-state serving as judge advocates in the military to appear in California courts and represent military personnel on a limited basis. (Rule of Court 9.41)

• Foreign Legal Consultant Program: Regulates attorneys who are licensed in a foreign

jurisdiction to register and engage in the limited practice the law of that country in California. At the end of 2010, 47 attorneys from 26 foreign jurisdictions were registered as foreign legal consultants. (Rule of Court 9.44 and State Bar rules)

• Practical Training of Law Students Program: Regulates law students who may provide

limited legal services under a California attorney’s supervision. In 2010, 2,625 students applied to the program. (Rule of Court 9.42 and State Bar rules)

• Legal Specialization Program: Administers the requirements for California attorneys to

become certified specialists in one or more of 11 areas of law. Certified specialists must pass a written exam, possess special education and experience, undergo peer review and recertify every five years. Currently, 4,238 lawyers are certified specialists and another 338 are certified by five other organizations accredited by the the State Bar. (California Rule of Court 9.35 and State Bar rules and standards)

• Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Providers Program: Authorizes education

providers to offer MCLE courses to lawyers. In 2010, providers filed approximately 2,015 applications for provider status or for approval to teach individual classes. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6070, Rule of Court 9.31 and State Bar rules)

• Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance: Tracks whether State Bar

members meet their continuing legal education requirements every three years. In September 2010, the State Bar placed 416 members on involuntary inactive status for failure to comply. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6070 and State Bar rules)

• Lawyer Referral Services (LRS) Certification Program: Certifies services that refer potential

clients to attorneys in California. To qualify for certification, an LRS must verify that its attorneys have sufficient experience and training, agree to fee arbitration for dispute resolution and possess certain liability coverage. At the end of 2010, 58 lawyer referral services were operating in California. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6155 and State Bar rules and regulations)

Probation The Office of Probation monitored the compliance of disciplined lawyers with the conditions of probation. In 2010, the number of cases ranged between 799 and 886 per month, an increase of 13 percent over 2009. The office referred 165 attorneys to OCTC for possible discipline for failing to meet the terms of their probation and filed 20 motions to revoke probation.

59

Mandatory Fee Arbitration The State Bar’s program processed 107 arbitration cases in a state-wide program to arbitrate disputes in fees between attorneys and clients. Awards in favor of clients that are unpaid may be enforced through a process administered by the program. In 2010, 70 client made requests for enforcement and refund payments were made to 48 clients. The State Bar Court placed nine lawyers on involuntary inactive enrollment for failing to pay fee arb awards.

60

VVIIIIII.. CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

61

IX. CONCLUSION

• With the new information in the revised Annual Discipline Report, the State Bar will continue to monitor the performance of its attorney discipline system in 2011.

• Significant steps and changes will be implemented this year to address the caseload and

backlog figures disclosed in this report.

• The State Bar will examine the statuses of the complaints, such as those abated or held or designated complex, and recommend to the Legislature and Supreme Court whether these types of matters should be included in the backlog.

• The State Bar is committed to instituting structural and organizational reforms necessary to improve performance of its discipline system this year to achieve the statutory goals for processing and resolving complaints.